When does a race become too extreme?

[veji11]

I don't understand some of the posters here : Sure they were crashes in the descent and a variety of injuries. But as usual with our very narrow focused "route design" forum bias, we focus on this aspect. It is silly because there are many other issues. For example, do we talk about tyre width, pressure and grip ? About how light and ultra rigid the frames are meaning that there is no ability to mitigate some irregularities on the road ? Do we talk about how special a race the olympics are and the risk the riders are willing to take to win it ?

Could the decent have been safer ? Yes, a road without kerbs would have been less dangerous even with the same route. When riders go as fast downhill on an alpine road of similar sinuosity and speed, there are no kerbs so less of a "touch the kerb and you are out" risk, more of a "*** missing the turn, let's go for that patch of grass instead of the tree".

But nasty falls happen when riders are willing to risk it all. Nibali did fall at the Firenze 2013 WC because he went for it as it was very important to him. To me in our modern racing panorama the Poggio descent, while shorter and far less steep would be a good benchmark in that it shows how riders are willing to take big big risks on the descent to get to the finish line. You have crashes every year in that descent even though the stakes are considerably lower (MSR comes every year, top 10 or 5 placing is still a good result, etc).

You know what other races get a bad rap for safety from some while actually making us fall in love all over again with this sport every years ? Cobbles and flander type classics. Gand-Wevelgem 2015 was more extreme than this, yet turned out to be the race of the year. Every year Paris Roubaix gives us many crashes and dram, yet this year it was the best race along with the Olympics road race.

No what we should take away from this race is again how much air reduced teams can give the race... you want to see riders duking out from afar on Ardennaises, you want to see some leaders trying something from the Redoute or earlier, you want to see a group arriving at the foot of Huy and not a whole bunch ? Give us reduced teams. Give us teams of at most 6 on one day races and one week long stage races. Let us try GTs with 7 riders per team...

 

[SKSemtex]

Answer is obvious. It start to be extreme when Cance decide it is extreme. He was quiet after the OGRR so it was not extreme at all.
I have not heard Kittel and Martin complaining either.

 

[Davesta]

I think it's fair to say that the Vista Chinesa descent was, as far as descents in cycling go, relatively dangerous - steep (c.10% gradient), fast & twisty with lots of blind corners.
That doesn't in itself make the descent dangerous. But whereas, say, the Col de Manse* generally has nice grass fields for riders to bail onto if they overshoot a corner, the Vista Chinesa descent has deep gutters, high pavements & lot of trees. That's what makes it relatively dangerous.

Added to that is the context in which it was raced - 15km from the end of arguably the biggest one-day race of the year, and in a race where the parcours and dynamics meant that any climbers who wanted to win (i.e Nibali, Henao, Majka) would need to get a gap on the climb and maintain/extend that gap on the descent. It was always going to be raced hard, and on the limit.

As for whether it was TOO dangerous...I don't know...
Arguably, the riders determine how dangerous a descent is. They could easily have taken it cautiously and stayed upright with no problems (see Mara Abbott). But at the same time, the parcours invited, or perhaps forced, some riders to ride it dangerously, and I think that could be predicted. Indeed, it was predicted by some, and certainly bore out to be true, given the extensive list of injuries.

So, in summary, I'm not sure what the answer is...!


* Perhaps not the best example given Beloki, G Thomas etc, but hopefully demonstrates the point!

 

[Netserk]

Nibali didn't push it when he fell in Firenze (he was in the middle of the peloton). It was just bad luck.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re:

A course is never too extreme. Every rider can decide for himself how much risk he's willing to take. No one forced Nibali, Henao, Porte, Van Vleuten to go down that descent that fast. Abbott was't comfortable taking those risks so she went down much slower and had no problem staying upright.

Agree with this to a large extent, but to say 'never too extreme' is ridiculous. Rio was definitely on the dangerous side, and there were places where a crash could have been worse than what Van Vleuten is experiencing right now.
Given the importance of the race, it was obvious some people were going to risk everything, and therefore it was irresponsible for the race organisers to do nothing about those gutters and not have some padding of some description, especially on the hairpin where Porte and the place where Nibali and Henao crashed, because those were always going to be the most likely places to see crashes.

But technical descents are part of the sport, and better descenders who judge the risk well should be rewarded

 

[samhocking]

I think Boardman summed it up pretty well last night in his little update on Vleuten. The descent had a combination of poor visibility due to light/dark contrast from canopy, gutters over 0.5m deep in places, negative camber, unmovable concrete walls, drainage edges made of right-angle paving slabs rising up from road, large trees just a few cm off the racing line very densely packed together, sheer drops and a fast technically difficult descent at the most critical point of the race making it obvious there would be a risk to life when the only safety precaution was some plastic pipe and garden netting around the corners. It wasn't enough. You see far more protection given to the riders in Grand Tours and Classics, Far more.

 

[veji11]

Re:

I think Boardman summed it up pretty well last night in his little update on Vleuten. The descent had a combination of poor visibility due to light/dark contrast from canopy, gutters over 0.5m deep in places, negative camber, unmovable concrete walls, drainage edges made of right-angle paving slabs rising up from road, large trees just a few cm off the racing line very densely packed together, sheer drops and a fast technically difficult descent at the most critical point of the race making it obvious there would be a risk to life when the only safety precaution was some plastic pipe and garden netting around the corners. It wasn't enough. You see far more protection given to the riders in Grand Tours and Classics, Far more.

There was risk to life in far apparently safer places where guys like Kyvilev or Weylandt or others have died...

The decent was dangerous, this is an undisputable fact indeed. Was it too dangerous is the question ? No : the winners were riders who descended reasonably, they didn't build up leads on the descent.

Now it is true that more protections at strategic places should have been there, it was far from perfect. But not too extreme. Too extrem means unfit to be ridden. This course was not.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Re: Re:

The gutters, curbs and trees made the descent way too dangerous, IMO. Protective measures should have been taken to assure that it was much safer. Not a big ask.

 

[veji11]

Re: Re:

The gutters, curbs and trees made the descent way too dangerous, IMO. Protective measures should have been taken to assure that it was much safer. Not a big ask.

Too dangerous for what ? If it was too dangerous to be ridden, why didn't some riders pull out ? It was dangerous yes, and measures could and should have been taken yes. In the end though the dangerosity in itself was manageable and had you seen a descent like this and GT stage or classic race, no one would have blinked an eye.

 

[Gigs_98]

Not a well informed post.

Ronde van het Hageland is part of the Napoleon games, a serie of one day races across the entire year so it's not a stage race. Also the winner didn't complain at all, he enjoyed himself, and said that they don't have to make it any crazier then it is now with a smile on his face.

I basically took the information about the race frome the race thread here and looking at the thread again I just misunderstood many of the posts there.
Anyway I think that doesn't really change a lot. I don't think that race was too extreme but it certainly was extreme and I bet there are also people who think different about that event.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

So I guess we should never use Aubisque as a pass again?

Thats a completely different topic. Descents in general are great but it's just obvious that there will be crashes on an extremely technical high speed descent at the end of the most important one day race of the year.

 

[veji11]

Re: Re:

So I guess we should never use Aubisque as a pass again?

Thats a completely different topic. Descents in general are great but it's just obvious that there will be crashes on an extremely technical high speed descent at the end of the most important one day race of the year.

Are crashes exclusively the fault of the route ? Why not blame the tyres or other elements. Again more protective measures should have been put in place on this route, but the route itself wasn't too extreme, otherwise you just deprive road cycling of a great part of its possible playing field.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: Re:

So I guess we should never use Aubisque as a pass again?

Thats a completely different topic. Descents in general are great but it's just obvious that there will be crashes on an extremely technical high speed descent at the end of the most important one day race of the year.

Are crashes exclusively the fault of the route ? Why not blame the tyres or other elements. Again more protective measures should have been put in place on this route, but the route itself wasn't too extreme, otherwise you just deprive road cycling of a great part of its possible playing field.

The people who made the route are afaik not the people who make rules for types and other elements, therefore those people knew with which equipment the race will be ridden and imo used a descent too dangerous with this equipment.
I actually think the route was absolutely great. The mixture of cobbles, hills and real mountains was great, I think the only factor which was a bit too much was the descent. And don't give me wrong, I wasn't sure what to think about this descent for a long time and actually I'm still not 100% sure, but somehow I think that it's hard to argue a section was absolutely okay when both races were decided by crashes in that section.

 

[gerundium]

Risk of severe injuries in descents will always be present. The fact remains this is a sport whereby the athletes are taking risks at high speeds with their only protection being a styrofoam helmet.

Responsibility of the organisers should be to attempt to mitigate the inherent risks. Especially in a one day event where the stakes are extremely high like here i think more could have been done here to mitigate the risks. In terms of Signage etc. Look at Utah, every marginally dangerous turn had a sign posted before it to warn riders. None of this was present in Rio.

Some netting was put up but the kerbs were left exposed. Had van Vleuten landed differently she could have been paralyzed or dead smashing her back into the kerb like that.

 

[Fergoose]

I've no problem with the route chosen that generated two simply fantastic races. A few points:

- 10km of flat is not insignificant. In both races the leader at the foot of the climb was caught on the flat. So the descent was not the decisive factor in the result (although how some riders chose to tackle the descent was).

- the only crash I saw on camera was the Dutch lass. She just messed it up. She had a big gap against a pure climber who would not catch her on the flat and was near the foot of the descent but got her line all wrong. It was poor racing on her part and a misreading of her situation. Obviously I hope she fully recovers quickly.

- the roads have guttering and adverse camber for a reason. This is a tropical region and to have the roads built any other way would risk flash flooding and landslides that would cut off roads for the public and cancel the race if even a brief storm came. So to argue against the route is to suggest that no race in a tropical region of South America should ever test the descending skills of riders anywhere near the finish. I think that would be a shame.

- riders and teams had ample opportunity to survey the descent, particularly if it was part of the circuit (which I think all of it was).

- cycling is a historically a sport where your brain is just as important as your legs and lungs. At least it is when you don't have team radio giving you constant instruction and letting you switch off your brain. I'd have loved Henao and Nibali to have won, as they'd have been worthy champions. But they chose a high risk tactic that didn't work. They could have instead agreed to combine forces against Majka's sprint on the flat section. It was their choice as riders to not do that.

 

[PeterB]

Re: Re:

the winners were riders who descended reasonably, they didn't build up leads on the descent.

I'm not sure it is as simple as that. I don't think you can tell that those who did not crash descended reasonably while those who did risked too much. All descended with some level risk (i.e. probability of crashing), and for some the risk materialised, while for some, not. You could even crash taking less risk while those taking more risk could have just more luck on that occasion.

 

[samhocking]

The issue is not the route, the actual descent, the riders or their equipment. The issue is lack of foresight and safety measures implemented to prevent riders killing themselves or ending their careers on that section of the route.

The point is, all those riders in hospital would pehraps still have crashed and lost the race, but with proper safety barriers, and the gutters filled the risk to riders would be minimized. It's pretty obvious the riders can crash at any moment even on a straight road. That can't be prevented, a 0.5m deep hole, concrete edges and trees on your racing line can be barrierd off, filled in and risk to life minimised - It's simply money, that's all it comes down to.

 

[8472]

The riders themselves make it look dangerous because they don't know their limits and push on the descents without knowing how to brake and take the right lines through the corners. Put Sagan, Cancellara, etc on this downhill and they will not crash, not to mention pretty much anyone who competes MTB downhill courses will laugh at those who say this downhill is dangerous. Nibali/Alaphilippe are overrated descenders who have crashed god knows how many times on descents because they don't know their limit, try to go too fast and crash, and are just not technically good descenders.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

The riders themselves make it look dangerous because they don't know their limits and push on the descents without knowing how to brake and take the right lines through the corners. Put Sagan, Cancellara, etc on this downhill and they will not crash, not to mention pretty much anyone who competes MTB downhill courses will laugh at those who say this downhill is dangerous. Nibali/Alaphilippe are overrated descenders who have crashed god knows how many times on descents because they don't know their limit, try to go too fast and crash, and are just not technically good descenders.

The problem is that the riders will always push their limits, no matter how dangerous a descent is. If there would be nails on the road and spikes on the curbs some riders would maybe stop taking risks, but meanwhile taking risks would become even more beneficial because the ones who do take risks and don't crash get an even bigger advantage. The bottom line is that even if the riders would know their limits, they would still take risks which is why imo a descent can be too dangerous.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

So I guess we should never use Aubisque as a pass again?

Thats a completely different topic. Descents in general are great but it's just obvious that there will be crashes on an extremely technical high speed descent at the end of the most important one day race of the year.

I'm not talking about "in general", I'm talking about a very specific and very dangerous descent. Don't tell me this is not at least as *dangerous* as the Rio descent (not as technical, no, but far more dangerous in case you do crash):

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: Re:

So I guess we should never use Aubisque as a pass again?

Thats a completely different topic. Descents in general are great but it's just obvious that there will be crashes on an extremely technical high speed descent at the end of the most important one day race of the year.

I'm not talking about "in general", I'm talking about a very specific and very dangerous descent. Don't tell me this is not at least as *dangerous* as the Rio descent (not as technical, no, but far more dangerous in case you do crash):

It's not as dangerous because it would be in a completely different racing situation. Look at Nibali on the Joux Plane this year. He knew that it's not worth risking his life there and therefore he didn't. Rio however was one of his main goals for the season therefore he risked a lot knowing that if he drops everyone on the descent he will most likely win gold.
Anyway I think that actually it wouldn't be such a bad idea to use nets on the Aubisque descent because that looks seriously dangerous.

 

[Netserk]

What you talk about is a dangerous race, not a dangerous descent

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

What you talk about is a dangerous race, not a dangerous descent

How dangerous a descent is ofc depends on the race, and if it comes early or late in the race. IIrc the only crash of a famous rider on the first two Chinesa descents was Porte. However in the last descent when the riders were already close to the finish and Nibali, Henao, Thomas and Alaphillippe all crashed. On the Aubisque it's also more likely that people will crash on it when it's close to the finish than when it's in the middle of the stage and the pace is really slow.

However the fact that the descent in the ORR was close to the finish alone isn't an explanation why there were so many crashes. So the difficulty of the descent and the situation in the race combined were what made the descent so dangerous.

 

[Ryongsyong]

The point is, when you have a descent that is not only difficult but dangerous, it actually becomes boring to watch. Yesterday one person attacked, and we were left seriously considering if she was paralysed or worse. Everyone else went down incredibly slowly, well within their limits, because they valued their health and their life. I'm sorry but 10km out from the finish very slowly and well within your limits is not what we're here to see. It's boring. It's why this route was so badly designed and thought out. Difficult, technical descent, which rewards the brave, great, a dangerous descent which punishes the brave and rewards the slow and boring, no.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Fwiw, Van Vleuten's crash really wasn't the organisers' fault. Yes, the gutter was dangerous, which smashed into her back when she fell, but ultimately she took a terrible line into that turn, and unfortunately just got it wrong, and paid the price by losing the race. Hopefully she'll be fine soon, placing her in ICU seems more precautionary than anything else